Joseph,

Where to start? I take issue with your suggestion that third party candidates are not serious about national security, or that a vote for a third party candidate would somehow endanger this country. I can look at the republican platform, and by no means do I think that what they are doing to this country is making us 'safe.' I can make a strong argument that a vote for George Bush has done far more damage to this country than any other vote, but we don't need to go there. And no, I am not saying that democrats would have been any better. John Kerry and the DNC tried a strategy of being more 'hawkish' than Bush. Many of the policies Bush is now advocating in Iraq (the surge, for example) were suggested by John Kerry, so no, democrats under Kerry would not make us any 'safer.' (Unless of course, you believe the republican rhetoric that Kerry was a liberal, and was just saying things to get elected.)

In the 2004 election, third party candidates offered far more comprehensive solutions to foreign policy, military spending, and over all safety, than did democrats or republicans. Pat Buchannan, for example, made 'anti-intervention' a cornerstone of his policy. You may not agree with the policy, but it was far more detailed and developed than anything coming from r's and d's. Ralph Nader, David Cobb, Michael Badnarik- if you were familiar with their platforms on foreign policy, you might recognize that it is the republican and democratic parties dismissiveness of these third parties that probably leads you to believe that these parties are 'not serious about national security.' They are serious, its just that they do not believe that we can continue with a policy of "might makes right" and not expect some form of retaliation from the rest of the world.

And not to wage a battle of semantics, but is not economic ruin a danger to this country? Sure, my philosophy is colored by Paul Kennedy and 'The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers', but when we spend so much on 'wealth protection' instead of
'wealth creation', history has shown that we are in decline as a superpower. Spending more than one half of our national budget on military arms is insanity.

And as the world's largest arms producer and exporter, the United States has no one to blame but itself for creating an environment where, guess what, we see a dangerous world and feel the need to arm ourselves. Cutting our military is not going to make us any less safe, and could even improve our fiscal health.

But the real issue for me is the notion that a winner take all system 'facilitates the responsible exercise of a protest vote' that might lead to a viable third party. Under your thinking, a vote for a third party in a close election would be irresponsible. To the contrary, there is no such thing. As John Quincy Adams once said, "Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost." You may decide to adopt the 'lesser of two evils' mindset, or you can vote for what you believe in. If you vote for what you believe in, even in a close election, you will never vote in protest, but in promotion of your values and ideals. It is only when you see the two main party candidates as 'the only options' that you construe a vote for a third party candidate as a 'protest' vote. That may be appropriate for your understanding, but your views on voting do not reflect the thinking of your typical third party voter. They reflect the thinking of a mainstream candidate voter who might occasionally vote outside the mainstream. You are selling third party voters short.

Maybe that is why I have to comment- I don't want a 'protest' voter to decide what is best for creating a 'viable third party.' (Why stop at three? In a country as big and diverse as ours, why is it that our choices are so limited?) The reason a protest vote will never lead to a viable third party is that the 'protest voter' is not loyal to the third party's cause. And if one of the mainstream party shapes their message to sound like the third party's message? Perhaps Kierkegaard described the problems best with this quote: "Truth always rests with the minority, and the minority is always stronger than the majority, because the minority is generally formed by those who really have an opinion, while the strength of a majority is illusory, formed by the gangs who have no opinion—and who, therefore, in the next instant (when it is evident that the minority is the stronger) assume its opinion ... while Truth again reverts to a new minority." On any given issue, a third party is likely to have a strong, coherent, position on some topic, that will attract voters away from the two main parties. The two main parties, recognizing their lock on power could be threatened if a groundswell erupts behind the issue, generally see the merit in 'co-opting' the issue. It gets watered down, whittled away at, offering enough 'promise' for the proponents of the idea to consider voting for the mainstream party, as it means that their idea may actually get implemented. If it happens, it is not a regular occurrence. More likely than not, those proponents of the ideal see a greatly watered down proposal discussed, and discussed, and discussed until it is no longer an issue worth discussing.

Scrap the winner take all system. Implement Instant RunOff Voting or ranked choice voting. You will have a more meaningful exchange of ideas, more constructive dialogue, and more civil campaigns. THAT will create viable third parties, fourth parties, and more. The end result could still be that democrats and republicans maintain their lock on power, but more diverse views will be invested in this experiment we call democracy.